The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses最新文献

Abstract: INTRODUCTION: Nurses have a central role in educating patients and families about treatment options and how to integrate them into action plans for neurologic conditions. In recent years, a growing number of intranasal formulations have become available as rescue therapy for neurologic conditions or symptoms including migraine, opioid overdose, and seizures. Rescue therapies do not replace maintenance medications or emergency care but are designed to enable rapid treatment of urgent or disabling conditions in community settings. Yet, discussion of rescue therapies for neurologic conditions remains limited in nursing literature. CONTENT: Intranasal formulations are specifically formulated for delivery and absorption in the nose and have several characteristics that are well suited as rescue therapies for neurologic conditions. Intranasal formulations include triptans for migraine, naloxone and nalmefene for opioid overdose, and benzodiazepines for seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy. Therapeutic attributes discussed here include ease of use in community settings by nonmedical professionals, relatively rapid onset of action, and favorable safety profile and patient experience. This information is critical for nurses to make informed decisions about rescue therapy options, incorporate these into plans of care, and educate patients, care partners, and other healthcare providers. CONCLUSION: Rescue therapies are increasingly important in the care of people with neurologic conditions. Various formulations are available and continue to evolve, offering easy and quick ways for nurses, patients, and nonmedical care partners to administer critical rescue medications. For nurses overseeing medication management, the attributes of intranasal rescue therapies should be considered in the context of providing patients with the right care at the right time.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Neurogenic bowel and bladder are well-known complications of spinal cord injury. During the acute phase of recovery from spinal cord injury, spinal shock occurs, resulting in loss of reflexes and peristalsis of the gastrointestinal tract. These impairments can result in complications in the gastrointestinal tract and, secondarily, the respiratory system due to the distention of the abdomen. Current guidelines for bowel management target the chronic phase of spinal cord injury after a diagnosis of neurogenic bowel dysfunction can be made. METHODS: The purpose of this literature review was to determine evidence-based recommendations for bowel management during the acute phase of spinal cord injury. A systematic search using the databases CINAHL, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest was used to identify relevant evidence. RESULTS: The available evidence is based on expert consensus, is dated, and tends to be based on studies conducted during the chronic phase of injury. Careful assessment of the symptoms of bowel dysfunction would indicate that during the acute phase of spinal cord injury, spinal shock causes a patient to experience an areflexive bowel pattern where bowel motility is limited and reflexes are absent. Management of areflexive bowel includes establishment of a daily bowel program including manual removal of stool. To improve emptying of stool, factors such as rectal and oral medications, fluid, fiber, and activity may be adjusted according to need. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence focused specifically on bowel management in the acute phase of spinal cord injury. Bowel management is complex and multifaceted and needs to be individualized to the patient as well as frequently reevaluated with changes in condition. Further research is needed to evaluate outcomes for bowel management in the acute phase of spinal cord injury to promote best practices.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Hourly neurological examinations (neuro exam) have been widely used to monitor for a decline in neurological status, allowing for timely intervention. There are, however, limited data behind this common practice. The objective of this study was to identify how frequently neurological decline occurred across various diagnoses and whether that decline (1) was identified by a scheduled neurocheck and (2) altered management. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed in a neurological intensive care unit at a tertiary care academic medical center. Clinical neuroscience nurses caring for patients with hourly neurological assessments completed a brief survey at 12-hour shift completion. RESULTS: Data were collected from 212 nurse's shifts. Neurological changes were identified by nurses in 14% (n = 30) of shifts. The neurological change was identified during a scheduled neurocheck 67% of the time, with the detection of changes more likely to occur during a scheduled neuro exam than at other times ( P < .05). There was no change to the care plan in 55% of the cases of neurological decline. Patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage were more likely to have a decline detected. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that many patients undergo hourly neurological exams without ever identifying a neurological deterioration. In many instances of neurodeterioration, there was no change to the treatment plan pursued. Primary diagnoses and neurological changes may not be entirely independent, and therefore, hourly neuro exams may have greater yield in some diagnoses than others. Replication is warranted with a larger sample to evaluate the risks and benefits of neuroassessments.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Most critical thinking assessment tools are resource intensive and require significant time and money to administer. Moreover, these tools are not tailored to evaluate critical thinking skills among inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) nurses. This pilot study explores the efficacy of using short videos to evaluate critical thinking for nurses working in an IRF. METHODS: We developed and filmed 3 clinical scenarios representative of common IRF events that require critical thinking on behalf of the nurse. Thirty-one IRF nurses participated in the study and independently scored their own critical thinking skills using a visual analog scale. Using the same scale, nurse managers and assistant managers who worked closely with the nurses also rated the critical thinking ability of each nurse. The nurse then viewed and responded in narrative form to each of the 3 videos. A scoring rubric was used to independently evaluate the critical thinking skills for each nurse based on the nurses' responses. RESULTS: Nurses rated their own critical thinking skills higher than mangers rated them (m = 85.23 vs 62.89). There was high interrater reliability for scoring video 1k (0.65), video 2k (0.90), and video 3k (0.84). CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate efficacy for further study of low-cost alternatives to evaluate critical thinking among neuroscience nurses providing IRF care.